July 23, 2008

Enjoying Skyrocketing Demand, NYT Raises Price of Copy a Quarter Up to $1.50
— Ace

Fark had the story and the headline.

Here's the actual report.

It does make sense, though, I have to admit. They're writing for a smaller and smaller -- err, "more selective" -- audience every day, and that small audience tends to be upscale liberals who don't mind high newspaper prices, just as they don't mind spending $6.00 on a cup of fucking coffee at Starbucks. The Times, like Starbucks, is for them a tribal signifier, and the fact that it's overpriced is, if anything, a feature, not a bug.

Keeps the riff-raff out, you know.

Still, I'd like to see them go all the way up to $4.00 a copy -- perhaps they'd be profitable at that price point -- so that we can say "Welcome to New York, where ten dollars still gets you a newspaper and a cup of coffee."

Posted by: Ace at 03:59 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That the "Spinal Tap" rationale, they don't have a smaller audience, they are just more 'selective'; Didn't they learn their lesson from TimesSelect; where they wisely chose not to inflict Krugman, & Dowd on an unsuspecting public.

Posted by: narciso at July 23, 2008 04:19 PM (8nB5X)

2

It seems to me that they need to raise the price to $10 a copy.  In order to help advance alternative news sources that don't destroy the environment.

Posted by: Darth Randall at July 23, 2008 04:25 PM (oLULt)

3 And then there's Frank Rich.... I live in this town and I read the NY Post. My girlfriend (liberal [gasp!]) subscribes. Don't know what I'll use for the litterbox once they go under.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 23, 2008 04:28 PM (np0pW)

4 But, but, but, if they charge more, people will buy less and that will save the planet.

Right?

Posted by: mesablue at July 23, 2008 04:34 PM (5yNaE)

5 May we turn the NYT Building into AoSHQ Headquarters?

Posted by: eman at July 23, 2008 04:34 PM (bXWSG)

6 Around the office we call it the 'Sadr Strategy'.  You've seen our reporting on how Sadr wins in ways that less sophisticated observers term 'losing'. We've simply adapted his strategies to the media business. We expect similar results.

We're actually in negotiations with Mr. Sadr for the rights to work with him on a business book. Our tentative title is "It's Not the Bottom Line That Counts, it's the Press Coverage and Cocktail Party Invites".  I think it'll be required at all the best business schools in no time.

Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at July 23, 2008 04:36 PM (hlYel)

7 NYT will never shut down but I can't see it being relevant anytime soon.  I'm too skeptical to even imagine an unbiased new source but I wish someone would at least try. Starbucks is just crap in cup. Most any bookstore and my kitchen can make better coffee for less $. I get these swipe cards for Starbucks and just throw them away.

Posted by: TH at July 23, 2008 04:44 PM (2SWnr)

8 The Sunday edition is 4 bucks and they do sell about 1.5 million of them ,its drop in circulation has been only about 50% of that of the Washington Times which seems to be about the only right-wing newspaper that is comparable. Of course the fact is that the Washington Times is kept afloat only because of the generosity of the Rev Moon

Posted by: John Ryan at July 23, 2008 04:47 PM (TcoRJ)

9

Starbucks isn't a coffee shop.  It's a desert store.

This NYT price thing is starting to remind me of pets.com.  Maybe the sockpuppet is free.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 23, 2008 04:48 PM (eSqCK)

10

a san fran airport shop had them at $9 when i was there last.

oh. and CODFISH!

Posted by: QUESI LOMPOPO MUGABE FELITI OBAMA (COUSIN) at July 23, 2008 04:49 PM (8p6GI)

11 John,

Thank you.

I'd give you a complimentary subscription for your slavish devotion to liberal causes.  Unfortunately, we can't afford it.

Obama '08!

Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at July 23, 2008 04:50 PM (hlYel)

12

yah- and converted into aussie currency which was 55cent to the US $ that was about 14bucks or something

CODFISH!

Posted by: QUESI LOMPOPO MUGABE FELITI OBAMA (COUSIN) at July 23, 2008 04:52 PM (8p6GI)

13 I'll have a Venti Style section, please.

Posted by: Che Pizza at July 23, 2008 05:03 PM (RLBRw)

14 The Sunday edition is 4 bucks and they do sell about 1.5 million of them ,its drop in circulation has been only about 50% of that of the Washington Times which seems to be about the only right-wing newspaper that is comparable.

John, by saying you now regard the NYT as comparable to the Washington Times, I'm fairly certain you've posted what they would regard as the most offensive insult on this thread.  I won't argue.

Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 05:11 PM (NNNPc)

15

OK, help a 'tard out here.  Am I supposed to be going to ace.mu.nu or ace.new.mu.nu,  or ace.fu?  WTF?  It's like a freakin' shell game at the canival.

Oh, as a pre-emptive strke, don't offer dailykos.mu.nu or huffpo.pu.wu or any other wise cracks like that.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: pistolero at July 23, 2008 05:17 PM (hBUN7)

16 I don't get the starbucks hate... a large coffee is $1.70, same as I pay at the cafeteria at work.  At least where I live, it's just the place where normal people can get coffee... maybe it's different if you live in a big city.

Posted by: Terry at July 23, 2008 05:20 PM (u0hRZ)

17 Is there a link on the Washington Times figures? Not that I wouldn't take a troll's word for something ...

Posted by: VRWC Agent at July 23, 2008 05:24 PM (Z3AmO)

18 I have no objections to the higher price of the N.Y. Times, but I wish that the price had a more gradual adjustment.

Posted by: Barack H. Obama at July 23, 2008 05:27 PM (vxGjP)

19 Raise the price even higher, but offer rebates if you pay cash for the paper!

Posted by: Lee Iacocca at July 23, 2008 05:47 PM (TPRbZ)

20 How much carbon goes into an issue of the NY Times, anyway? I'm just asking on behalf of a fevered planet.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at July 23, 2008 06:05 PM (Z3AmO)

21 pending $6.00 on a cup of [f-bomb] coffee at Starbucks You can get a 16oz cup of coffe at Starbucks for $2.00 (they'll even give you a 10 cent discount if you bring your own cup). Plus, if you pay with one of those gift cards, refills are free (otherwise, normally 50 cents).

Posted by: Nobody knows I'm a sock puppet at July 23, 2008 06:51 PM (t6qNW)

22 $1.50?  That's ridiculous.  I'm switching back to Charmin.

Posted by: lemmiwinks at July 23, 2008 06:59 PM (Qv6BF)

23

smaller and smaller -- err, "more selective"

ace, you are solid gold!

 

Posted by: lloyd at July 23, 2008 07:12 PM (7DBFK)

24

 NYT Raises Price of Copy a Quarter Up to $1.50

Good luck with that.

Any minute now,  they're going to ask that the government socialize nationalize the newspaper so people can afford it. Oh I know, maybe they can offer newspaper stamps.

The type of people who read it are the type of people who will see this as reasonable.

Posted by: pajama momma at July 23, 2008 08:04 PM (f3xJa)

25 It's not the paper that's the problem.  It's the ink that they smear on it every day that lowers the value.

$1.50 doesn't sound bad for a pad of blank paper delivered to your house every morning.

Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 23, 2008 08:09 PM (XSmBC)

26 I understand taking on the Times, though I must admit I do read it.  But what's the deal with taking a shot at Starbucks?  Its a good cup of coffee. 

Posted by: not_steve_in_hb at July 23, 2008 08:09 PM (SsvUp)

27 From "all the news that fits the print" to "there's a sucker born every minute"

Posted by: Penfold at July 23, 2008 08:14 PM (mKeF6)

28 ...newspaper stamps...

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a bill is introduced to do just that. Maybe even subsidized radios so the children can listen to NPR.

Posted by: Bart at July 23, 2008 08:17 PM (Wy08N)

29 It does make sense, though, I have to admit. They're writing for a smaller and smaller -- err, "more selective" -- audience every day

Apparently Spinal Tap is running the New York Times.

Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 08:18 PM (NNNPc)

30

A couple of years ago I use to go to the Oregon coast on a regular basis, a small town called Manzanita.  Very left wing.  They have a coffee shop in town, Manzanita New and Espresso or whatever that had tons and tons of magazines, a bunch of which were hard core lefty socialist, dope smoker today, whatever.  National Review... nope.  Anyway, they also had Tibetan Prayer Flags, aka napkins for $18 and buttons of all sorts and sizes, "corporations suck", "power to the people", "people not profits".  They charged $6 for the NYT and even though I would always order the same thing, 2 large lattes, not to complicated, the total was never the same.  $6 one day, $6.80 the next, $6.45 the next.

Eventually I found another coffee shop.... that had much hotter (and less butch) women working the counter.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at July 23, 2008 08:29 PM (bSdbt)

31 1 That the "Spinal Tap" rationale, they don't have a smaller audience, they are just more 'selective'; Didn't they learn their lesson from TimesSelect; where they wisely chose not to inflict Krugman, & Dowd on an unsuspecting public.

I gotta learn to post on the old site so these don't become redundant.

Posted by: AD at July 23, 2008 08:33 PM (NNNPc)

32 After stopping my various subscriptions to newspapers, I would buy them on the weekends and occasionally during the week. Then I limited myself to ones left behind in cafes.  Then I went to online and now I am totally detoxed from the Slimes. 

Posted by: grc at July 23, 2008 08:41 PM (NhH5C)

33 With any luck they'll go out of business before John McCain has a chance to 'correct' his op-ed.  Sort of reminds me of the old line 'if we don't hurry up and surrender in Iraq we just might win this thing'.

Posted by: pistolero at July 23, 2008 08:46 PM (hBUN7)

34 And then there's Frank Rich...

Who, frankly (pun intended) was a much better theatre critic than he is a political commentator.

Posted by: cheshirecat at July 23, 2008 09:09 PM (zuJzg)

35 Speaking of NYT douche bags...

What's the latest from Paul Krugman? He was talking shit about the economy since Bush's first day in office. Now that we're in a economic slowdown his vagina must be all wet.

Posted by: Bart at July 23, 2008 09:15 PM (F9+nM)

36 And Frank Rich was a lousy theater critic...bada bing

Posted by: The obvious at July 23, 2008 09:15 PM (1g+FW)

37

Ace,

This has been your best day of posts evah!

Posted by: DL at July 23, 2008 09:33 PM (BfPzY)

38 Mark Steyn is infinitely better at both.

Posted by: someone at July 23, 2008 09:46 PM (2z2WN)

39

The NYT weekend edition is the only thing keeping the paper going, and Rupert Murdoch is gunning directly at that with a competing WSJ product.

The weekend WSJ should be hitting its stride this time next year, and will be the final nail in the NYT coffin.  They're already strangling the NYT by offering ad space for less.

Good old Rupert.  He's the greatest thing since whatever the last greatest thing was.

I just wish a bunch of rich conservatives could buy one of the alphabets.  It might just save this country.

Posted by: Dogstar at July 23, 2008 10:31 PM (6AcsH)

40

#25 - oh c'mon!  -he stole that whole spiel from the 'spinal tap' movie.

And by the way, Barack Obama has the tastiest nutsack I have ever had the privilege to feast my moist tongue and full lips upon.

 

CODFISH!

Posted by: John Ryan's prolapsed rectum at July 23, 2008 10:51 PM (vNJsi)

41 If I want an absurdly left-wing rag to read, the LA Weekly is free.

Posted by: epobirs at July 24, 2008 12:17 AM (dei5/)

42 $1.50 doesn't sound bad for a pad of blank paper delivered to your house every morning.


Sure, that'd be great if you had little kids. We got a roll-end of newsprint when I was a kid and had weeks of fun with it.


Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at July 24, 2008 12:23 AM (ac2qn)

43 Wait a minute - you have to pay for the NY Times? 

Posted by: tcbevo at July 24, 2008 12:24 AM (inTsh)

44 I thought you meant they give you $1.50 when you haul away one of their piles of compost.

Posted by: tcbevo at July 24, 2008 12:28 AM (inTsh)

45 "Who, frankly (pun intended) was a much better theatre critic than he is a political commentator."

Hell, I'm a better theatre critic (let alone political commentator) than Frank Rich, and I haven't been to the theatre in years.  And only to the movies about twice a year.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 24, 2008 01:13 AM (1Sf5X)

46 Fuck the NYT and the horse they rode in on. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2008 03:09 AM (uhncL)

47

I don't fuckin get this.

Columbia has now admitted rescuers posed as FARC terrorists, Red Cross medics, and journalists??

How many of them were there?

The FARC camp was just suddenly overrun with strange new FARC command, red cross medics, journalists, mimes, and dwarves.

How many disguises can you wear at once?

Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 04:04 AM (m6c4H)

48 Give up, FARC terrorists.  You are surrounded by a crack set of highly trained commandos!

Ah, OK.  Would you believe "red cross medics, journalists, mimes, and dwarves"?

Posted by: Agent 86 at July 24, 2008 04:35 AM (RLBRw)

49 I thought the WSJ was Ryan's "right-wing" boogie man newspaper?

Posted by: Techie at July 24, 2008 04:39 AM (KZR2J)

50

Man in Che t-shirt with a red cross armband holding a CNN microphone, an AK-47 and a mackerel enters the FARC camp:

'Hola! I am a former heavyweight boxer who was down on his luck following a career ending motorcylce accident, who recently climbed back on the wagon and joined up with FARC like you, posing as a reporter doing undercover work as a red cross worker who's pretending to be mute to get disability AA preferance, with a PhD in climatology, doing an expose on how deforestation effects global warming, while disguised as a local fishmonger. Please show me where you keep our hostages, my comrades!'

Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 05:12 AM (m6c4H)

51 Brandish that mackerel, man!  Brandish it!

Posted by: John Cleese at July 24, 2008 05:37 AM (RLBRw)

52 Oh, thanks.  Next time, a "don't be taking a drink while reading this" warning would be helpful....  Now I gotta clean off the keyboard again...

Posted by: MAJ Arkay at July 24, 2008 05:39 AM (iFIPs)

53 Colombia admits? If you want to fool terrorists you have look like someone the terrorists would reasonably expect to be on their side. Dressing as soldiers would have been a disaster, dressing as rich corporate executives wouldn't have been much better. Should they have come wearing hunting clothers with "No Somos Soldados" embroidered on the backs? The left wants it both ways. It can't be a war, it has to be a crime. But when the authorities use ruses that a police force can use (and are not subject to international law), the left cry about using the Geneva symbols.

Posted by: Potosi Joel at July 24, 2008 05:44 AM (TPRbZ)

54 I guess it is the f*cking that makes the coffee so expensive at Starbucks!  Who knew?  I thought it was the beans that travel through the digestive system of a weasel or something like that.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at July 24, 2008 06:02 AM (4L5Tl)

55

I have no problem with practically anything they do.

FARC is not signatory to the Geneva conventions so Columbia has no obligations to follow them while dealing with it. Nor does FARC follow the Geneva conventions.

The 'McCain' argument is half baked. 'We need to act good - so other countries will act good. If we don't act good, how can we expect them to?'

The problem is they allready aren't. Why doesn't the same logic apply backwards? If they don't act good, why the hell should we be expected to?

If we act good no matter what out of principle : Why the hell should they? There's no incentive here!

The NGO types and media are essentially on the side of terrorists, because they disproportionately aid them. The standing army has it's own medics, it's own field hospitals, and it's own PR department. The terrorists do not.

If Red Cross can't work with FARC without worrying about being shot by them (because Columbian soldiers disguise themselves as Red Cross) I say good. Then the Red Cross might want to think about not working with them. At least not until FARC starts upholding Geneva convention guidelines and then expect Columbia to as well.

In short, if NGO's want Geneva convention status they should be working with Geneva convention signatories (or at least, abiders). And not getting Red Cross help would at least provide some leverage, some actual incentive, benefit/disadvantage to whether or not FARC follows some of the 'rules of war'.

Terrorists (like Hamas) allready do disguise themselves as red cross. Yet we don't worry about standing governments (like Irsael and Columbia) shooting red cross because of this tactic, do we? No.

Human actions are like lightning - we follow the path of least resistance. Want to control where it goes, set up a conduit. Want the rules of war followed, you have to make it worthwhile to follow them, incentivize following and disincentivize deviance. You can't just enforce the rules on one side regardless, and then hope the other follows out of just the goodness of their heart. It winds up being masochistic, like pacivism, that inherantly supports the most aggressive, recalcitrant side.

Columbia can use biological/chemical agents on them for all I care. When FARK starts signing (and abiding) by treaties, then I'll expect the same of their opponents.

Posted by: Entropy at July 24, 2008 06:16 AM (m6c4H)

56

I don't get the starbucks hate... a large coffee is $1.70, same as I pay at the cafeteria at work.  At least where I live, it's just the place where normal people can get coffee... maybe it's different if you live in a big city.

And I can make a cup of coffee at home for about 0.02.  What's your point?

Posted by: Steve L. at July 24, 2008 06:33 AM (o0YD+)

57 But what's the deal with taking a shot at Starbucks?  Its a good cup of coffee.

It's burned. They've trained millions of people to love the taste of water strained through charcoal.

Posted by: lauraw at July 24, 2008 06:37 AM (DbybK)

58 This is blatant profiteering!  The government must take action!

Posted by: Trimegistus at July 24, 2008 07:19 AM (7HBUF)

59 Hey, at least you don't live in the NewYork City; imagine having to see the NYT without even trying...

Posted by: ParisParamus at July 24, 2008 07:43 AM (ETj1R)

60

Hey now, don't be hatin.  You know we're gonna reconnect this business to you, our customers by returning an "emotional attachment" to Starbucks.

I'm shooting for an emotion somewhere between "disdain" and outright "loathing".

 

Posted by: Howard Schultz at July 24, 2008 07:44 AM (pzen5)

61 YouTube Video Converter helps you download YouTube video to your computer and convert YouTube Video to MP4, 3GP and other videos, such as convert YouTube to avi, DivX, XviD, rm, rmvb, MOV, MPEG, MPEG4 AVC, H.264 and WMV, VOB; VCD, SVCD and DVD Format .mpg; And the independent player of the YouTube Converter will amuse you by playing your favorite videos.M2TS Converter is a powerful m2ts conversion software that can convert M2TS files to other video and audio formats. Convert m2ts, ts, trp hd video files is so fast and perfect.For e.g. With the M2TS Converter you can convert m2ts to AVI, convert M2ts to MPG, convert m2ts to iPod, convert m2ts to WAV, etc. The software support a series of output formats like, WMV, AVI, ASF, MPEG, MP4, MOV, 3GP, VOB, FLV, WMA, MP3, AAC, WAV, etc. It can aslo supprt convert m2ts files to iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP, PS3, Creative Zen, Archos, MP3, and other Video and audio players. The Transfer iPod to Computer is premium iPod transfer software for iPod music, video and photo transferring. It can transfer iPod to computer and backup iPod to computer quickly and smoothly. It's also a computer to iPod transfer tool which can transfer iPod music, videos and photos from computer to iPod.iPod to Mac Transferis perfect and powerful iPod transfer for Mac software. It offers iPod to Mac transfer of music, photo, video, movie, podcast and TV program. Moreover, iPod to iTunes, and Mac to iPod transfer are also supported.DVD to iPod for Mac is specially designed for Mac Intel and Mac Power PC users to convert DVD movies to iPod video format on Mac OS X (including Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard). Supports playback on iPod touch, iPod classic, iPod nano and other portable video players.

Posted by: himmi at December 07, 2008 09:38 PM (nWyuK)

62

 Convert m2ts to DVD is a splendid video conversion software which can convert m2ts files to DVD on Windows with excellent output quality and high conversion speed.

M2TS to DVD Converter is such a powerful conversion tool that you can set video brightness, contrast, saturation, crop video, trim video and even merge multiple files into one single file, batch convertion is also supported. With M2TS to DVD Converter, you can also convert your videos to any format and put them on all popular portable players such as iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP/PS3, etc. Free download M2TS to DVD Converter and enjoy your colorful multimedia life now!

 

Posted by: melissa at October 26, 2009 01:52 AM (oPgHP)

Posted by: 23sds at September 27, 2010 07:56 AM (qm0Bl)

64

cheap oakley cheap oakley

pandora uk pandora uk

cheap nhl jerseys cheap nhl jerseys

nhl hockey jerseys nhl hockey jerseys

Posted by: hockey jerseys at June 01, 2011 08:53 PM (ZN5Bn)

65 It's burned. They've trained millions of people to love the taste of water strained through charcoal.

SEO Pakistan

Posted by: SEO Pakistan at November 01, 2011 02:35 AM (Q7nl0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Post is locked.
101kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.0819 seconds.
63 queries taking 0.0337 seconds, 251 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.